Accident Case

Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013: The Advocates of the Accused completed their final arguments in answer to the charges framed against the Accused for the following offences:

i. under sections 304 Part II, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code

ii.under sections 3 (1), 134, 185 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The main arguments of the Accused in defence, based on the evidence on record, were as follows:

  1. The unfortunate accident that occurred in the early morning of 28.9.2002 at around 2.30-2.45 am, at the junction of Hill Road and St. Andrews Road, Bandra (W) was caused by the front left tyre of the Land Cruiser bursting and Ashok Singh, the driver of the Accused, consequently losing control of the car.
  2. The Prosecution has failed to make out any case against the Accused. Since inception, the present case has been prosecuted against the Accused on surmises, conjectures, contradictions and discrepancies. It is an established principle in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426:

– it is prosecutor’s duty to prove beyond all reasonable doubts              and not the defence to prove its innocence –

3.   Only one eye witness, PW Ravindra Patil (PW Patil), being the               police constable assigned for protection duty to the Accused,                 has stated that the Accused was driving the Land Cruiser (Car).          The sequence of events and evidence of PW Patil are full of                   improvements over time, show several contradictions, are                    unbelievable, and cannot be the basis of a conviction. The                      Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Badri v. State of Rajasthan              (1976) 1  SCC 442:

“… If a witness, who is the only witness against the accused to                prove a serious charge of murder, can modulate his evidence to             suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of             securing a conviction, such a witness cannot be considered as a           reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole                     testimony.”

    4. Since the date of the incident, the Prosecution has deliberately               suppressed for thirteen years, that driver Ashok Singh had visited        the Bandra police station in the early morning of September 28,              2002, and had informed the police that he was driving the Car.

5. Both PW Patil and PW-27 Kishan Shengal, who was the Senior              Inspector at Bandra Police Station at the time and who, as per his          evidence, took over the investigation on 01.10.2002, have referred        to driver Ashok Singh in their depositions. PW-27 has gone to the         extent of stating in his cross-examination “I investigated about               Ashok driver. I interrogated him but I did not record his statement.”         No explanation is offered about this by the Prosecution. The                   argument advanced by the Prosecution that this story is made up         after thirteen years is belied by the evidence. As per the Indian              criminal justice system, there was in fact no occasion before this for      the Accused to disclose his defence.

6. PW Patil has deposed that he had phoned the police control room.        The Accused says he had asked driver Ashok Singh to call the              police shortly after the accident and, accordingly, driver Ashok              Singh had called the police control room. PW-26 PSI Kadam, the            first investigating officer, has admitted that every call made to the          control room is recorded in the VHF Register. Collection of                    information in respect of the call could have thrown some light on this    most important aspect i.e. the name of the caller and the details of the    information communicated by caller. This information could have            been treated as the First Information Report (FIR). However, the            Prosecution has not produced the details of the call and, as such, the    evidence of PW Patil cannot be relied upon to conclude that he had        made the call. PW-26 has in his evidence stated that PW Patil did not    disclose orally or by written information about the incident prior to          lodging complaint in the police station.

7.The complaint stated to be made by PW Patil at 5.45 am on                    28.9.2002 cannot be treated as an FIR, as the same is not first in          point of time. It is filed after considerable delay. The evidence shows      that the FIR was not prepared even on 29.9.2002 morning when PW–   19, (Motor Vehicle Inspector Rajendra Keskar), demanded the FIR at    the time of inspection of the Car. This circumstance is extremely            suspicious, as it is not possible that the police will not show a copy of    the FIR or panchnama to another officer who is involved in the                investigation. Further, the FIR was not sent to the Ld. Magistrate the      same day as required by Section 157 of Cr.PC and the Police                Manual. It was sent the next day. Two officers, API Yadav and PSI        Kadam are stated to have recorded the FIR. It is unheard of that an        FIR is recorded jointly by a senior and a junior officer. Strangely, the      Prosecution has not examined API Yadav as a witness.

8.PW Patil’s Statement recorded on 28.9.2002 does not mention that         the Accused had consumed alcohol on 27/28.9.2002, let alone that       the Accused was under the influence of alcohol. The allegation of          alcohol consumption was added on 1.10.2002 viz. on the fourth days    thereafter, by a Supplementary Statement of PW Patil. This is clearly    an after-thought of the police. It is unbelievable that a policeman            would leave out such an important aspect in his first Statement, and      only introduce it on the fourth day.

9.The version of the accident given by PW Patil is falsified by                    circumstantial evidence, the evidence of other witnesses examined      by the Prosecution, and by the contents of an interview given to Mid-    Day newspaper by PW Patil, which was published on 30.9.2002 and    is a part of the evidence (cross-examination) of PW Patil.

10. In his evidence before the Ld. Magistrate, PW Patil has stated that         the Accused drove from his residence to Rain Bar, then to JW               Marriott and was driving back to his residence thereafter when he         was speeding, drunk, and lost control of the car, resulting in the             incident/accident. In the interview given by PW Patil that formed the       basis of the article published by the Mid-Day newspaper, he is               supposed to have said the Accused’s driver, Altaf, drove from the         residence to Rain Bar, and later to JW Marriott. There is no                     explanation what happened to Altaf thereafter. There is no mention         of the Accused having consumed alcohol. The Accused has been         deprived of the right of cross-examination of PW Patil on this most         important aspect of the case, as PW Patil has passed away.

11.No valet/ doorman from Rain Bar has been examined as a witness        to corroborate that the Accused drove to and from Rain Bar. The            valet at JW Marriott hotel who allegedly took the Car from the                Accused to park it, Yogesh Kadam, has not been examined as a            witness. The Prosecution has also not produced the valet tag, in            evidence, that they claim was given to the Accused by Yogesh              Kadam, and on which Yogesh Kadam’s name was written as per          the evidence of PW-12 Kalpesh Verma (the valet who claims to              have brought the Car to the Accused when he came out of Enigma       pub at JW Marriott). The only conclusion that can be drawn from this     is that Yogesh Kadam refused to lie and follow the police                         instructions, to say that the Accused drove the car to the JW                 Marriott hotel (when in fact driver Altaf had driven), and that the             Accused was drunk (which he was not).

12. PW-12 does not give evidence that the Accused actually drove the       car. He stops at saying he saw the Accused sitting in the driver’s           seat in the porch of JW Marriott hotel. He does not say the                     Accused was drunk. No doorman or security guard who would be        at the door or gate of JW Marriott hotel has been examined as a            witness.

13. The Prosecution have not called the other person they say was in          the Car, Kamal Khan, as a witness.

14. PW-27, Senior PI Kisan Shengal who took over the investigation as       per his own evidence on 01.10.2002, has admitted in his cross               examination that the finger prints of the Accused were taken and a         forensic team had inspected the Car. He has also admitted that the       finger prints of the Accused were sent for comparison. The result of       the finger print examination is not produced in the court and no               explanation has been tendered by the Prosecution for this. Thus,           an adverse inference can be drawn that the finger prints found on           the steering wheel did not match with the finger prints of the                   Accused.

15. PW-9, Rizwan Rakhangi, the manager at Rain Bar, being a                     natural witness and there being no reason to disbelieve, has stated       in evidence that he escorted the Accused outside Rain Bar to the           open space when the Accused was leaving, and that he saw four         people in the car, including the Accused.  PW-8, Ramasare Pande,       being the owner of a dairy near the spot of the accident, and also a       natural witness and there being no reason to disbelieve, has                   deposed “Two persons were also present in the car in addition to           Salman and police constable Patil, but I do not know who were the        two persons”. The defence has thus proved the preponderance of          probability that four persons were present in the Car.

16. No witness has stated that the Accused ordered or consumed               alcohol at Rain Bar. The Prosecution witnesses say that the                   Accused was standing at the bar counter as there was a crowd of         about 200 people at Rain Bar that night. PW-9, Rizwan Rakhangi,         has stated in his evidence “The particular numbers were given to           the tables which were arranged in the restaurant. For the purpose         of billing the table numbers are important.” Four bills are produced          by the Prosecution, respectively bearing Table Nos. 38, 40, 13 and       18. Clearly, these have been randomly collected by the police, and       falsely sought to be linked to the Accused. PW-9 has, in his                   evidence, stated that these bills were collected by the police. These       bills cannot be attributed to the Accused.

17. The police had recorded the statements of three employees of               Enigma pub at JW Marriott hotel, who had stated that the Accused         had only consumed water at Enigma pub. The Prosecution has not       examined any of these three as witnesses.

18. Neither PW Patil nor any other witness at Rain Bar or JW Marriott         has given evidence that the Accused was smelling of alcohol or            seemed to be under the influence of alcohol. PW Patil does not              explain when he realised the Accused was drunk. In an air-                    conditioned car he could have easily smelt the alcohol. In fact, as a        policeman, he would not have allowed the Accused to drive and/or        put himself at risk by being driven by a man who was as drunk as is      later alleged.

19. It is impossible to believe the evidence of PW-3, injured Mannu               Khan “After 15 minutes of the incident, Salman came out from the           car… According to me Salman was caught by the people and he           was drunk and felled down and got up and again he stood and was       felled down again was a important event.”  A man who cannot even       stand cannot run. PW – 3 has admitted in the cross examination             that he did not say this either in his police statement or in the                statement recorded by the Ld. Magistrate. Thus, it is an                          improvement, and cannot be relied upon.

NOT A SINGLE WITNESS, OTHER THAN PW PATIL HAS SAID THAT HE SAW THE ACCUSED DRIVING THE CAR, OR CONSUMING ALCOHOL (WHICH ALLEGATION WAS ADDED BY PW PATIL FOUR DAYS LATER), LET ALONE BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

20. After saying the Car was being driven on St. Andrews Road                  towards Hill Road, PW Patil has stated in his cross-examination            before the Ld. Magistrate “I cannot say the name of the road on              which the incident car driven from Hotel J.W.Marriott to the place          of  the incident.

21. PW Patil stated that they left JW Marriott hotel at 2.15 am and the           accident occurred at 2.45 am. Least traffic is expected during this         time of the night. PW Patil has further stated that the distance                 between JW Marriott hotel and the spot of the accident is 7-8 kms         and the car was being driven at 90-100 kmph. It is a matter of                 simple calculation that a car which is driven at 90-100 kmph will             require 4 to 5 minutes to reach the accident spot from JW Marriott         hotel. If it takes 30 minutes, then the speed of the Car would be 30-      35 kmph with stops and slowing down where required. If the Car            had been driven at 90-100 kmph speed then the accident should            have occurred at 2.20-2.25 am, which is not the case of the                    Prosecution.

22. If the Car was being driven at the speed of 90-100 kmph and                 without braking the Accused tried to take a 90 degree turn, the Car,       which is an SUV and has a higher center of gravity, would have             toppled. If the Car had collided with the American Express                     Cleaners building at this speed then the damage would have been         much more. The photographs brought in evidence by the                       Prosecution show that the front and right side of the Car, and all             internal parts of the Car were undamaged. There is only some              damage to the left front corner. Air bags had not deployed. The Car        merely dented the shutter of American Express Cleaners.

23. There is evidence to show the existence of speed breakers on St.         Andrews Road, including near the junction, where Holy Family               Hospital is situated. PW-15, Alok Panday who is also a                           natural witness and there being no reason to disbelieve, has stated       “There are 5 to 7 speed breakers near the hospital”, and DW-1 has        stated that there were speed breakers as one approaches the                junction of St. Andrews Road and Hill Road. It is not possible for a       car to be driven over a series of speed breakers at such high                 speed. It is also inconceivable that the car coming at such speed           from St. Andrews Road could end up at the angle shown in the               police sketch diagram, and yet miss the electric box that stands             between a car approaching the junction from St. Andrews Road             and American Express Laundry. It is also impossible for the front           tyres of the Car to be turned towards the left after impact, as is the         case which can be seen from photographs put in evidence by the        Prosecution, if the Car was turning right after having come from St.        Andrews Road.

24. PW Patil, PW-8 Ramasare Pande, and PW-13 Amin Kasam                   Shaikh, who is also a natural witness  there being no reason to               disbelieve, and PW-26 PSI Kadam have deposed that the front left         tyre of the car had burst. As per the Prosecution evidence, the               burst tyre was never sent to a forensic lab or to any tyre expert to         find out the reason for the burst. The condition of burst tyre could          have thrown some light on the matter. One can conclude that no            attempt was made in the investigation to find out the cause, as the        police were aware that the accident was caused by the burst of the        front left tyre.

25. PW-19 Keskar has admitted that if a pointed stone comes in                   contact with a tyre, it can burst. He has further admitted that after a       left front tyre burst, the car will pull to the left, and that in that event,      the steering will become hard.

26. PW-19 Keskar was examined by the Prosecution to prove the fact         that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defect in         the Car.  However, it is clear from the evidence that he is not                 knowledgeable at all about this model of Car, he did not inspect the      Car, and did not follow the prescribed procedures, including filling          the prescribed proforma under the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles              Rules, 1989. It is evident that PW-19 has lied about having                    inspected the Car, including the front left tyre. PW-19 says in his            examination in chief “I was in a position to drive the car in spite of         finding less air in the left front portion wheel tyre”….“I drove the               vehicle about half kilometer and then parked the vehicle. I took               vehicle in reverse and took U turn while testing the vehicle”. PW-26       (PSI Kadam) states in his cross-examination that “The vehicle was      standing in front of the police station during the period of inspection        for a one to one and a half hour period. At that time also the vehicle        was not in a position to drive.” PW-19 has made basic errors in his        evidence, like saying the Car had a push button start, when in fact it      is in evidence that the Car is started by inserting a key in the ignition     and turning it.

27. While PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, being three of the four injured, allege       they saw the Accused getting out of the driver’s side door of the            Car, it is submitted that (i) it would have been impossible for any of        them to have seen who was getting out of which door of the Car, as      they were under the Car, and (ii) in fact the Accused did get out of          the driver’s side door, being the last of the four people in the car.            That the left front door was jammed has been stated by PW Patil in        his evidence, as also by PW-8, PW-13 and DW-1. PW-8 has stated      that PW Patil, who claims to have been sitting on the left front seat        with the Accused driving the Car, was seen standing outside the            Car when the Accused was getting out. This evidence negates the        possibility that PW Patil was sitting on the left front seat and the              Accused was driving, as in such case PW Patil could not have got       out of the Car before the Accused.

28. PW Patil has stated that the Accused ran away from the spot. This       evidence has been completely falsified by several other witnesses,      who have admitted that the Accused was present at the spot for            about 10 to 15 minutes after the accident

29. PW 7, Fransis Fernandes, also being a natural witness and there           being no reason to disbelieve has, amongst other witnesses who           have corroborated this, stated that the mob at the spot after the             accident, was furious, and some persons were armed with rods             and stones. He further stated that he sensed danger to the life of           the Accused and took the Accused away from the mob, his wife             stopped a passing car and the Accused was made to sit in the car         and leave.

30.PW-27 has stated in his evidence that the Accused could not be            found and was traced and arrested at Almeda Park, Bandra (W).            Yet, the arrest panchnama states that the Accused was arrested at      Bandra Police Station at 11:00 am on 28.9.2002.

31. PW-15 has stated that he went to the residence of the Accused             and met the Accused there at about 9:30 am on 28.9.2002. The             Prosecution says the police searched for the Accused at his                 residence in the morning on 28.9.2002 and did not find him there.           There is no record, such as a search warrant or search                         panchnama, maintained by PW-26 or PW-27 of the police                       searching for the Accused that morning, which clearly indicates             that they did not do so.

32.The Prosecution’s case is that after arresting the Accused at                  Bandra Police Station at 10.30 am, at about 2 pm (about 13 hours         after the alleged consumption of alcohol by the Accused) the                 Accused was taken to Bhabha Hospital and then to JJ Hospital,             where the Accused was medically examined and his blood sample      drawn. No explanation is given why the Accused was taken to a            second hospital, and that too all the way to JJ Hospital. No record of      Bhabha Hospital has been produced about the medical examination      of the Accused. PW-27 Kisan Shengal has attempted to improve the      Prosecution’s case by saying that API Suryavanshi told him that the      facility of blood extraction was not available in Bhabha Hospital.  API    Suryavanshi, who had given a letter to the medical officer for                  examination of the Accused, has not been examined by the                    Prosecution, and the said evidence of PW-27 is required to be                excluded from the evidence, being hearsay. This explanation is              further falsified by the fact that Bhabha Hospital has an ICU unit. This    presupposes that facilities for surgical operations are provided, which    require blood transfusion. Further, it is difficult to believe that PW-26      PSI Kadam as well as API Suryavanshi were not aware about where    the Accused was required to be sent for medical examination. It is        admitted that Bhabha Hospital is a municipal hospital where accused    persons are regularly sent for examination to the hospital. Under            these circumstances, the non-production of the record of examination   of the Accused at Bhabha Hospital shows that the record of the             examination was suppressed by the Prosecution, because it does not   support their version.

33. Further, after 13 hours of the alleged consumption of alcohol it is           impossible to believe that the breath of the Accused would smell of       alcohol, even assuming he had consumed alcohol, which he had           not.  If in fact the Accused had consumed the quantity of alcohol           that would result in the test result produced by the police, (viz.               blood sample collected more than 13 hours after the alleged alcohol       consumption) it is impossible to believe that the Accused could             have driven the Car all the way upto the accident spot without               hitting anything. The route is about 8 kms, with cars parked on               each side of the road, having over 10 significant turns, cars                   traveling, and people crossing the road.

34. The evidence shows the incompetence of the doctor at JJ Hospital      who allegedly collected the blood of the Accused. There is clearly          fabrication in the records maintained by the doctor, including                  changing “Breath smells” to “Breath smells alcohol”. There are              unbelievable gaps in the chain of custody and storage conditions of      the alleged blood sample drawn by him at about 2.30 pm on                    28.9.2002. He has not followed the prescribed procedure for blood        extraction until sealing the bottle. The law requires that a chain of          custody has to be established by documents at every stage of              extracting, transferring, preserving, sealing, carrying, storing and          handling of the sample and all protocols must be observed strictly         so that there is no room for suspicion. Any breach of the prescribed       protocols should result in discarding the entire evidence. The                 Prosecution has miserably failed to establish a clear chain of                 custody, requisite precautions, and the quality of experts and, as           such, the evidence of alcohol consumption needs to be excluded           from consideration.

35. There is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the blood       sample for three days, until it was allegedly examined in the                   laboratory on 1.10.2002 by PW-18, the Chemical Analyzer (CA).           PW-27 Kisan Shengal, who had not yet taken over as investigating       officer, has made a material improvement saying in his evidence           that there was a fridge in his ante-chamber in the Police Station,             and the bottle of blood was kept in the fridge. He has admitted that         there is no mention about this anywhere in writing. In fact, PW-21           Head Constable Borade, who allegedly carried the blood sample to       the CA on 30.09.2002, has admitted that when the sample was               given to him by PSI Kadam, it was not cold and was at room                   temperature, and that there was no fridge at the Bandra Police               Station. The conclusive proof of tampering of blood is the                       discrepancy in the quantity of blood sent by JJ Hospital and                   received by laboratory.  According to PW – 20 Dr. Pawar, he                 measured the sample extracted from the Accused and it was 6             ml/cc. PW – 18 Bhalshankar has stated that he measured the                 quantity of blood received and it was 4 ml.

36.There is discrepancy as to how many sealed samples were                  dispatched from JJ Hospital. PW – 20 Dr. Pawar has stated that 2          sealed phials and Form A and B were put in one envelope.                      However, PW – 21 has stated that two envelopes were given to him      by PW-26 PSI Kadam. In one envelope there was a letter and other      envelope. There were two bottles. It is not known which bottle the          chemical analyser has ultimately examined.  According to PW – 18        he has analysed both the bottles and no separate record was                maintained.  In the case of Shravan Ganpat Randhir v. State of              Maharashtra (1979) Bom CR 419, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court        has held:

In the submission of the learned Advocate, there is no evidence to        satisfactorily account for the custody of the said blood phial from 6-        6-1975 to 9-6-1975. There is some substance in this contention.            One cannot, in the circumstances, safely rule out the possibility of        the blood phial being either altered or substituted.

     11…Now, in this behalf, it is possible, in a given case, to come to a        conclusion that the accused has displaced the presumption arising        against him by leading appropriate evidence regarding at least the          probability of the defence in the aforesaid behalf. He need not prove      the defence beyond reasonable doubt.”

37. The complete incompetence, untruths and contradictions of the CA        who allegedly examined the blood sample, clearly show that the             police have tried to create a completely false case against the              Accused regarding consumption of alcohol by him that night.  The          evidence of PW-18 Bhalshankar (CA) is highly unsatisfactory.              Amongst other untruths, he could not say how he conducted the           modified diffusion oxidation method. Yet, he says he had used the         method at least 1000 times before 2002. In his evidence before the       Ld. Magistrate, he had stated that he had used the morpholine test         to determine the result and there was no reference whatsoever to         the modified diffusion oxidation method allegedly used by him. This,       and his lack of knowledge of chemistry and prescribed procedures,       completely destroys his credibility.

38.There are compelling circumstances that show that the unfortunate         death of Nurulla was not the result of the act. That Nurulla was alive       after the accident is borne out by PW-11, Mohd Abdulla Sheikh,             being one of the injured, who has stated in his evidence “Till the car       was lifted, myself and Nurulla were crying for help.”  As per PW-8         “When the car tried to lift by the crane, the bumper of the car was            came out. Thereby car again felled down. The crane was again              applied in order to lift the car.”  Although the post-mortem report of          Nurulla shows crushed head, neck, chest, abdomen, and all                  internal organs crushed badly, there is no mention in the evidence          of the Prosecution of blood on the ota outside American Express            Cleaners. In his evidence PW-26 IO Kadam has stated that “Blood        was noticed on the front left tyre of the vehicle… the blood was              also noticed on the front left wheel base.”  If in fact the injuries in            the accident had resulted in death, there would be no question of            Nurulla crying for help. If Nurulla had suffered serious injuries as            shown in the post mortem report due to the accident, there were            bound to be bloodstains on the ota. It seems evident that the police        did not record any bloodstains on the ota, as examination of these          bloodstains with photographs would have shown that they were            caused by the Car falling after being lifted by the crane, and not the        body being run over by the car tyre. The post-mortem report also          shows extensive crushing of head and body of Nurulla, which is            inconsistent with being run over by a car tyre. It is pertinent that            PW-26 has not recorded the statement of the crane driver nor                does he know the name of the crane driver, nor of the company            owning/ operating the crane. It is impossible to believe this, and the        only conclusion can be that the crane operator would have given a        statement/ evidence stating the true facts that the crane dropped            the Car, thereby causing death of Nurulla.

39. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the atmosphere would have        been charged and the manner in which the accident had occurred          had evoked strong reactions, as the Car belonged to a celebrity,            and he was in the Car at the time of the accident. Under these                circumstances, the police must have been under tremendous                pressure to arrest the culprit at the earliest. Natural prejudices                operate against celebrity accused in such cases, especially due to        the presence of media and the mob outside the police station. It is          also natural that since the mob was in an agitated state, the only            course available to the police was to name and arrest the Accused        in order to pacify the agitated mob.

A summary of the statement of the Accused u/s 313 of the Cr.PC is as under:

On 27.9.2002, at about 11:00 p.m. the Accused’s brother Sohail Khan called to ask the Accused to join him at Rain Bar. The Accused and his friend Kamal, with PW Patil, went to Rain Bar in the car driven by driver Altaf. At that time the Accused’s family had employed three drivers, Ashok Singh, Altaf and Dutta. These drivers did not have any fixed duty hours and would work as and when required. The Accused and Kamal joined Sohail Khan, who was standing with his friends in a corner at Rain Bar, no table was available. The Accused drank some water and did not consume any alcohol. When the Accused and Kamal left Rain Bar, Altaf brought the car to the entrance and the Accused got into the front left seat, Kamal sat behind him, and PW Patil sat behind Altaf. Altaf was driving the Accused home, but they stopped on the way at nightclub Engima pub at JW Marriott Hotel. As Altaf was feeling unwell, he called Ashok to come to JW Marriott Hotel, and left. The Car keys were left with the hotel valet. At Enigma pub, the Accused only had some water and left after some time. When the Accused came out of Enigma pub, a valet brought the Car to the porch of JW Marriott as Ashok had not reached. PW Patil told the Accused, that Altaf was feeling unwell and had left, and that Ashok would be reaching shortly. The Accused sat in the driver’s seat and put on the air-conditioner. Kamal Khan sat at the back. PW Patil was standing next to the driver’s side door of the car. Soon Ashok arrived, and the Accused moved to the front left seat. Ashok drove the Car towards the Accused’s residence. The Car reached Hill Road via Manual Gonsalves Road and while driving on Hill Road, suddenly the left front tyre burst. The Car pulled to the left side. While Ashok tried to apply the brakes and control the Car, the Car climbed the steps of American Express Cleaners, hit the shutter and stopped. As the left front door was jammed, the Accused moved from above the gear lever to the driver’s seat and got out from the driver’s door, after driver Ashok had got out. The Accused and Ashok tried to lift the Car to rescue the injured, but could not do so. A large and hostile crowd started gathered and started throwing stones. PW – 7, Fransis Fernandis and his wife, whom the Accused knew, had also come. PW -7 asked the Accused to leave, since the crowd was getting violent. PW -7’s wife stopped a passing car and made the Accused go home. Before leaving, the Accused told Ashok to inform Bandra Police Station about the accident. Next morning the Accused learnt the police were looking for him and Ashok was still at Bandra Police Station. The Accused went to Bandra Police Station. On reaching the Police Station at about 10.30 am, the Accused found that a mob had gathered outside, and was shouting slogans against the Accused. The Accused met a police officer who told him that there was tremendous pressure to arrest the Accused. The Accused was shocked and tried to explain that he was not driving the Car, but the police did not listen and arrested him in a false case. The Accused was first taken to Bhabha Hospital and then to JJ Hospital. He was examined and his blood was extracted at both hospitals. A false case has been made against the Accused.

Accident Case

April 21, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused concluded their arguments. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande till the completion of arguments.

The advocates of the Accused and the Special Public Prosecutor had filed two separate applications against certain members of the media and PSI Rajendra Kadam in respect of certain content being published by them amounting to contempt of Court. His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande had issued notices to the parties concerned and listed the two applications for hearing on April 21, 2015. Pursuant to the undertakings given by the respective parties, the applications were disposed off by His Honour Judge Mr. D.W. Deshpande.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande has adjourned the matter to May 6, 2015, when the judgement shall be pronounced.

Accident Case

April 20, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused concluded their arguments. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande, till the completion of arguments.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 21, 2015, when the date of judgement shall be announced.

Accident Case

April 18, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused continued their arguments in support of the defence case. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande, till the completion of arguments.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 20, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will continue their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 17, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused continued their arguments in support of the defence case. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande, till the completion of arguments.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 18, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will continue their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 16, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused continued their arguments in support of the defence case. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande, till the completion of arguments.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 17, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will continue their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 15, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused continued their arguments in support of the defence case. The Accused’s personal appearance has been exempted by His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande, till the completion of arguments.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 16, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will continue their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 10, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The advocates of the Accused commenced their arguments in support of the defence case. Advocates of the Accused filed an application seeking exemption of the Accused’s personal appearance for the day, and the same was granted.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 15, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will continue their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 9, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The Special Public Prosecutor concluded his arguments in support of the prosecution’s case. Advocates of the Accused filed an application seeking exemption of the Accused’s personal appearance for the day, and the same was granted.

His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 10, 2015, when the advocates of the Accused will commence their arguments in support of the defence case.

Accident Case

April 8, 2015: Sessions Case No. 240 of 2013 was listed before Court Room No. 52 presided by His Honor Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande. The advocates of the Accused appeared. The Special Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State of Maharashtra. 

The Special Public Prosecutor continued arguments in support of the prosecution’s case. Advocates of the Accused filed an application seeking exemption of the Accused’s personal appearance for the day, and the same was granted.

As the session for the day concluded, His Honour Judge Mr. D. W. Deshpande adjourned the matter to April 9, 2015, when the Special Public Prosecutor will continue his arguments in support of the prosecution’s case.